Archived: Carlton Dene Elderly Resource Centre

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service and their relatives/friends told us, the records we looked at and what staff we spoke with also told us.

If you would like to see the evidence that supports our summary then please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Carlton Dene Elderly Resource Centre is a registered care home for older people and people with dementia. The home has 42 rooms set out over two floors and divided into four units, one of which is a respite facility. On the day of our visit there were 38 people using the service.

We looked at eight care records and saw that these contained a medical history and medication details. We saw that a range of risk assessments had also been carried out including falls and mobility, food and nutrition and behavioural management. Relatives we spoke with told us that "they have a personal interest in my [relative]" and friends of one person who used the service told us "we feel that they get good care."

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The relevant staff were aware of the policies and procedures relating to the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and understood when an application should be made and how to submit one. No applications had been submitted at the time of our visit. The service was not able to provide us with a copy of their safeguarding policy but told us they referred to relevant Health and Social Care guidelines. Staff were aware of their responsibilities to report any concerns they had about potential safeguarding issues directly to senior staff members.

There were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. We saw that some people had call bell systems in their rooms and that there was a pull cord alarm system fitted in bathrooms and corridors. The acting deputy manager told us that all duty managers had received training in first aid and carried a bleeper which could be used to summon assistance in an emergency situation.

Is the service effective?

Staff had completed an induction before commencing employment. The induction had included core subjects such as team working, moving and handling techniques and medication handling. The induction had been followed by a period of shadowing more experienced staff. Staff told us that there was a probation period of three months which was extended if staff required further training and support.

People who used the service and their family members/friends expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about people's care and treatment in collaboration with the home's management team and where appropriate, other health and social care professionals. Friends of people who used the service explained "announced or unannounced it's always the same, always clean [and staff] are all pretty good and very friendly."

Is the service caring?

One of the people who used the service told us that "the staff are brilliant." Relatives and friends of people who used the service told us that staff were "very supportive" and "very friendly" and that they always received "a warm welcome" when they visited. Relatives we spoke with told us that "they have a personal interest in my [relative]" and friends of one person who used the service told us "we feel that they get good care."

People's diversity, values and human rights were respected. People had their own rooms and were free to decorate and furnish them as they required. We saw that some people who used the service had their own furniture, soft furnishings, framed pictures and ornaments. One relative told us that they had been shown around the home and "were allowed complete freedom to do what we wanted with the room." People shared toilets and bathrooms some of which had been adapted for people with disabilities. Some rooms had sink units where personal care could be carried out in private.

There were a range of activities available for people who used the service. This included seated and standing exercises, singing, board games, quizzes, art projects and birthday parties. The activities co-ordinator told us that "people's faces lit up" when they joined the sessions. One person who used the service told us that they "would like to go out more often' and we saw from the minutes of a meeting that another person had requested more day trips.

Is the service responsive?

Staff told us that they organised meetings for people who used the service where issues such as the range of activities, food choices, the home environment, staffing and well-being were addressed. The last meeting was held on 13 April 2014.

We saw evidence that the provider had responded to recommendations for the introduction of communication training made by Healthwatch Central West London (an independent consumer champion for health and social care services) following a visit to the service by its Dignity Champions in February 2014. Staff we spoke to confirmed that they had received communication training on 15 April 2014.

People who used the service and their relatives/friends were provided with a welcome pack which outlined the service's aims and objectives and philosophy of care. The pack also contained information on how to make a complaint or leave a comment. Relatives we spoke with told us that the service had responded well to a complaint that they had made and told us "they take notice, the manager gave updates" and the "problem was fixed."

Is the service well-led?

The service had a registered manager in post. Staff we spoke with told us that the manager operated an open door policy. We were told that staff received supervision every three months and were appraised annually. We looked at eight staff records and saw that supervision had taken place for most within the last month. Staff we spoke with told us that the management team were "approachable" and they could "talk to them at any time."

We reviewed 12 questionnaires that had been completed in the past 12 month period by people using the respite service and noted comments such as "wonderful people" and "friendly staff." These questionnaires were not however made available to people who were living permanently at the home.

There were systems in place to record accidents/incidents and information available to people who used the service and their relatives/friends about how to make a complaint. The acting deputy manager told us that a formal system of medication auditing would be reintroduced in the very near future.

People that we spoke with said that the they were looked after well and that staff were "helpful". They said that staff "treat me ok" and that the overall service provided was "ok". Before people first arrived at the home full assessments of people's health needs and the risks they faced were undertaken. These were used to draw up appropriate care plans which were followed.

Appropriate health and social care professionals were involved in the initial assessment of people, drawing up and reviewing care plans as well as people's continuing care, treatment and support. They kept in regular contact with staff at the home and updated them on people's changing needs.

Prospective staff underwent an assessment and interview process before they started work and relevant checks on their identity and by the Criminal Records Bureau were undertaken. There was a complaints procedure in place and people were supported to raise any issues they had.